Reddit’s TwoXChromosomes subreddit overrun with angry dudes

As “activists,” Men’s Rights Activists seem to be good at only two things: harassing people, and flooding comment sections of websites with their endlessly repeated half-dozen talking points. On Reddit, for example, the local MRAs have been quite the little imperialists, invading a number of gender-related subreddits (like r/equality and r/egalitarian) and turning them essentially into r/mensrights-lite, which has effectively meant killing them. (The recently started r/masculism – an attempt to do Men’s Rights on Reddit without all the misogyny – doesn’t have a chance.)

Well, now the MRA invaders on Reddit seem to have set their sights on a much bigger target: the TwoXChromosomes subreddit. Yep, they’re trying to turn Reddit’s central hangout for the ladies into a boys club.

2XC– an explicitly female-oriented forum on a site (Reddit) heavily dominated by dudes — has always been a strange place. Though I am myself, obviously, a dude, I used to read it fairly regularly, finding it a welcome respite from all the “sammich” jokes and other idiot misogyny so pervasive elsewhere on Reddit. At the time, 2XC had a (completely unwarranted) reputation amongst the Reddit crowd as an evil place full of feminazi man-haters.

Then something started happening to 2XC. That thing was dudes. And not just any dudes – MRA dudes. Regulars on r/mensrights started linking to threads in 2XC and invading en masse, downvoting anything vaguely feminist and spewing forth their standard litanies of complaint. Some of these invaders decided to stay. And so, these sporadic raiding parties turned into a sort of occupation.

No, 2XC – despite the growing number of MRA residents, including a few female MRAs – has not turned into another r/mensrights. But at times, especially when the discussion turns to some MRA pet issue, the place looks a lot like dude central.

Case in point: this 2XC thread, expertly dissected by NauticalLittleNet in ShitRedditSays. The story: a woman posts a picture of her Halloween costume on Reddit and is bugged by a rude, creepy comment referring to her breasts (something that happens approximately ten zillion times a day on Reddit). So she posts the pic again to 2XC, hoping for sympathy. Instead, she’s treated to a barrage of comments mocking her for her alleged “persecution complex.” As NauticalLittleNet shows, the overwhelming majority of the obnoxious comments (all of which garnered numerous upvotes) were from dudes, many of them MRAs.

Naturally, this sort of thing – which happens pretty regularly on 2XC – has totally changed the dynamic of the subreddit from something that was sort of a haven for Reddit women to just another subreddit overflowing with obnoxious dudery.

As a Redditor called emmster noted recently in r/feminist, some women in 2XC have basically stopped posting anything vaguely feminist for fear of being jumped on by argumentative dudes:

I’ll be getting downvoted to Hell in the comments, but get PMs that are supportive from women who feel too afraid of the judgment and vitriol to jump in. I don’t love knowing there are women afraid to voice their opinions in a space that’s for women.

Honestly, I think the sustained r/MensRights invasion is what’s taking the largest toll. It’s like they can’t stand the idea that women have a space that’s active and popular, and they have to come ruin it.

And it doesn’t help that, as Donna_Juanita noted in the same discussion, some of the 2XC mods have essentially bent over backwards to accommodate the MRA invaders and to clamp down on feminists allegedly causing “drama.”

Since young men are a majority on the site as a whole, and a pretty hefty number of them haven’t had the “There Are Places I Am Not Necessarily Welcome to Pontificate on My Opinion” realization, the space becomes less of a place for women, and more of a place to talk about women. Which is a pretty big distinction. And a tricky thing to keep from happening without raising the ire of the entitled, ignorant young dude contingent.

As a reddit friend of mine put it, it all started with the “Hey Ladies, What Do You Think of My Dick?” posts. When a bunch of guys started posting questions, trying to “understand women,” which of course is a flawed goal, because women, being people, have a variety of opinions and preferences, and cannot actually be understood as a group. Some of them were actually questioning preferences on penis size, hence the name of the phenomenon.

My hypothesis is that eventually, it will be nothing but men talking to men about what they think about women.

Not that there is a shortage of such spaces on Reddit, or in the world in general.

By the way, that picture above is not actually a picture of 2XC regulars. It’s a picture of the Huutajat Men’s Shouting Choir. Which is a real thing in the world. Here they are in action:

“Also, he denied being Hengist but decided to announce other personas he’s visited as? That seems counterproductive.”

Yeah, seriously…does he not know how the internet works? Does he really believe he’s so discreet that he can just post anywhere and say anything?

I’m pretty sure people can recognize me from several places on the net (which can vary WILDLY), but one would think that if you’re trying to take down an online feminazi echo chamber, you would know what your browser’s web history is.

“Also, he denied being Hengist but decided to announce other personas he’s visited as? That seems counterproductive.”

I know! It’s almost like I’m… TROLLING FOR FUN. For a bunch of self-proclaimed intellectuals you people are pretty thick sometimes. It’s like if I took off a mask and said “Hey, it’s really me!” to which everyone responded with “aha! the fool has unwittingly revealed his identity!”

As for why do I stay, it’s fun getting a rise out of self-important blowhards. But lately it’s gotten boring hence the reveal and flounce. Whee!

As for why do I stay, it’s fun getting a rise out of self-important blowhards. But lately it’s gotten boring hence the reveal and flounce. Whee!

Yappy. Like a little lap dog.

Remember that time he got so mad at cynickal he wanted to beat him up and e-stalked him? Or all those times he lost his temper and, when it was pointed out that he’d lost his temper, compared himself to a dog that had been kicked too many times?

If Title IX really did put criminal trials in which a man is alleged to have raped a woman on the preponderance of evidence standard, I wouldn’t need to Google it. If it were still in force, it would be on the same level of “everybody knows” that the reasonable doubt standard in criminal law generally is.

it just occurred to me that owlslave is probably talking about the recent DoE advisory letter that said campus disciplinary proceedings should use a preponderance of the evidence standard for accusations of sexual assault and rape. obviously, this has nothing to do with criminal law, but mras like to pretend it does.

Why didn’t Alan Dershowitz write about this outrage?

because he didnt have a student capable of researching title ix obligations

it just occurred to me that owlslave is probably talking about the recent DoE advisory letter that said campus disciplinary proceedings should use a preponderance of the evidence standard for accusations of sexual assault and rape. obviously, this has nothing to do with criminal law, but mras like to pretend it does.

Oh, just because I’m feeling picky, it was an Office of Civil Rights Dear Colleagues Letter, but same same.

And (directed at the milkslave and other like-minded fools) ONCE AGAIN, in on-campus rape and sexual assault hearings in which the accused is found responsible for the actions zie’s been accused of, the result is expulsion only 10-20% of the time. That’s right: When the accused is found to be responsible of rape or sexual assault, at least 80 percent of the time, the punishment allows hir to stay on the same campus with the person zie assaulted. Zie just has to write a paper on why it was wrong, or gets a deferred suspension or something.

That’s at least partially why (1) the OCR clarified the standard of proof to be used, (2) on-campus justice for rape victims sucks ass, (3) MRAs who are up in arms about the DCL are completely nutty to think that what will result from it is anything like a violation of due process or a criminal trial.

to be fair to mras (ugh) i think the idea of the federal government, even in an advisory capacity, issuing guidelines for private tribunals raises some interesting constitutional questions. theoretically, if the guidelines were sufficiently concrete and compulsory, it arguably becomes a de facto article i court, which would in turn implicate some level of constitutional guarantee, and im not sure theres any reason thats the same as your rights before a de jure article i court.

that said, i dont think the dear colleague letter comes anywhere close to that point, and im not even sure where that point is.

that said, i dont think the dear colleague letter comes anywhere close to that point, and im not even sure where that point is.

Yeah, it really doesn’t. Basically, the idea is this: Colleges that get federal funding are required to meet Title IX standards of equity. Colleges that get federal funding were not doing so, as shown by an enormously revealing Center for Public Integrity report. They were mandating that reports of rape be handled in a way that was fair for anyone but the victim. Insisting on mediation between victim and accused; basing the need for school hearings on criminal investigations; allowing the accused to cross-examine the victim directly, have a lawyer at the hearing, etc., while the victim had none of those protections; not releasing results of hearings to the victim, or only releasing them if the victim signed a confidentiality agreement. The result of this inequitable system was that victims dropped out of school, and abusers got an education.

Placing some mandatory guidelines on a hearing in an attempt to create an equitable balance between victim and accused in a court created as the school thinks is best, using investigatory tools the school thinks is best, with fact-finders chosen by the school in whatever way the school decides is best, with interim protections chosen by the school from a range of possibilities that meet aforementioned guidelines of equity — all this is well within the fed’s authority under Title IX. I don’t see a constitutional issue.

i dont know the admin law side so well, but you dont have to tell me about the problems of sexual harassment and title ix in the college context. I’m currently gathering cases for an article i intend to write on the difficulty of establishing a college’s liability for sexual harassment under the davis standard, the contradiction this exposes between that standard and title vii’s sexual harassment liability under ellerth, and greater problems this disparity implicates for the treatment of sexual harassment under the law.

the constitutional problem i was talking about is totally separate from the content of title ix. what i was trying to say is i think its possible that if the federal government had a significant level of control over the operation of a private tribunal, legally that tribunal should be regarded as a de facto article i court, and the rights (or maybe some of the rights) of a defendant in an article i court would attach.

this is just something that occurred to me, and i havent had time to research it yet (although ive set up a meeting with my federal courts professor to ask about it), but i dont see any legal reason why it doesnt make sense.

and i agree with your analysis of the current state of the federal mandate except for the last point:

with interim protections chosen by the school from a range of possibilities that meet aforementioned guidelines of equity

which i think begs the question. what im getting at is the idea that there is a point where the federal government and the private tribunal could become so intertwined that the protections afforded a defendant would constitutionally be required to exceed mere equity, so i dont think thats a factor that should be part of the analysis.

OK, I think we’re talking about two separate things. Davis is about a Title IX action brought against a school; I was talking about hearings that a school conducts on sexual assault, rape and sexual harassment charges under Title IX. What I was talking about could lead up to what you were talking about, but it often doesn’t, and anyway they’re two different things, with different procedures, different causes of action, different procedures, etc.

Sorry for the confusion!

I don’t think that a school’s hearing panel would have anything to do with administrative law. To make that leap, I think you’d have to say that a company’s HR department is an agency. A university may be (and probably is) regulated by a federal agency, but that doesn’t mean that it is an agency. It’s possible I’m misunderstanding your point, though?

Off the top of my head, I think a better argument than the Title I courts one would be that to continue one’s education is a kind of property right, and depriving one of this right without due process is a 5th Amendment violation. Although seriously. Of the students who have been expelled from college as a punishment for being found responsible for rape, there seems little evidence that this blemish prohibits them from getting into another college. Probably it should. But it doesn’t. Theoretically, I think there could be a singular case where a college’s attempts to meet Title IX requirements could be seen to strip away the accused’s protections, but I struggle to see what that would look like. Most often, interim protections are, like, the accused has to eat at a different dining hall. Or, if there have been multiple accusations, the school might actually put hir on temporary probation.

Sorry for being too 101 with this conversation. I know you know your stuff, but I want to try to give background info for any lurking MRAs…

yeah, i understand the difference, i only brought up davis to show that i do have some familiarity with the problem of title ix and colleges. and the thing about admin law because its the largest potential gap in my theory, in that i know next to nothing about the promulgation of regulations, guidelines, etc.

youve pretty much got what im saying, but i want to make it clear that i dont think theres presently any situation that comes even close to implicating these questions, and i think thered have to be a massive revitalization of the federal regulatory apparatus before we even came close to that point. its more an intellectual exercise that i think is worth considering than a serious problem.

Ah, well, I defer to your con law nerdiness. I know about as much as I have to. Yay takings clause, property clause, and enclave clause!

I mostly just wanted to preemptively tear down any false notion any FRS people might hold, before anyone responded saying how unfair the DCL was to the poor rapists. I dunno if I did that, but thanks for the convo anyway. It’s sure as hell a lot more interesting to me than the paper I’m supposed to be writing.

UGH. Sharculese. You have my sympathies. I am crawling through this paper, but at least it’s not … corporate deadlock under the model business act. (Which probably is interesting, but not to me.)

There’s gotta be some kind of legal paper drinking game we can play long-distance, though. I think for me it would be something like, Every time you make a declarative and uncited statement that you suspect is untrue but you hope to fix in revision, take a shot.

i got lucky with my first two law school papers.the first was analysis of the cavalier use of text and history in chief justice roberts majority opinion in medellin v texas, where i was able to conclude, essentially, ‘yeah, it makes me really uncomfortable to accuse the sitting chief justice of being deliberately dishonest, but i laid out the evidence and theres no other conclusion.’

the second was for a seminar on popular understandings of the constitution. that meant the only things that were off limits as sources were academic papers. blog posts were encouraged. i wrote about political speech trials in the first half of the twentieth century, which meant i got to spend time just scanning microfilm for period articles, and was able to cite everything from eugen debs speeches to lectures at holocaust denial conferences.

this is not that. im writing about the weakest, most pathetic corporations in the country. the only interesting part is trying to figure out what the causes of the breakup were. the course is actually really cool though, and i’d write a way more boring paper to be in it. the professor was the first female law professor at the university of alabama, and is exactly as badass as you would imagine a woman would have to be to fill that role. she was also on the board of tiaa-cref when they were pioneering ideas about corporate governance and her class is one of the oldest corporate governance courses in the nation. shes the only reason i even took corporations in the first place.

Oooh, your professor sounds cool. I’ve been tempted to take corporate law. I’m not interested in working for a corporation, but I might be interested in working against them.

My paper’s a state survey on public trust doctrine. I love public trust doctrine. I think it’s exciting, if underused and misunderstood. But this paper — oh this paper! It’s killing me. The second draft will be great though.

Your papers sound awesome. When I’ve had an opportunity to write and research, so far it’s only been a brief, memo, or oral argument. I guess I’ll have an opportunity to write a real paper next year, but it sounds more fun to be able to write a wonky paper on an interesting topic, rather than a brief on a tort fact pattern.

“Men ruin TwoXChromosomes, only women can talk there.”
If you are seeing opinions you don’t agree with & poor contributions then clearly men are to blame, no thinking necessary, sexism is cool against men. A front page subreddit on a website with millions of visitors (& a slight male majority) will no surprise get a lot of men who read & take an interest in the discussion. You want everyone to shut up so you can hear what you want to hear, but TwoX is a subreddit dedicated to women’s issues, not an exclusive club for women, if you have an issue with that then go to /r/feminism or /r/trollxchromosomes which are the actual subreddits you seem to be looking for.

“Men’s rights are bad because yadda yadda.”
Proof would have been nice, better yet, don’t hate people for having opinions that differ from your own, perhaps you should realize that they experience the same things from feminists that you claim to experience from them. I shouldn’t have to say this because it is blatantly obvious, but men’s rights activists are both male & female. I think it is ironic that you think egalitarianism, a subreddit dedicated to insightful gender discussions from people of any gender or political opinion, is being called out when you seem to think /r/shitredditsays is a good source of information, a subreddit dedicated to mocking other people without any actual discussion taking place while making no attempt to hide their sexist or racist opinions about white men.

Well when you grow out of your white knight complex then people might actually be interested in having a discussion with you, until then i think it is best you don’t comment at all, because your articles are nothing more than silly rants against people for opposing your political opinions.

We Hunted the Mammoth tracks and mocks the white male rage underlying the rise of Trump and Trumpism. This blog is NOT a safe space; given the subject matter -- misogyny and hate -- there's really no way it could be.